2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

In Ta’anit 2 we learned that Rabbi Chanina said: “Much have I learned from my rabbis, even more have I learned from my colleagues, but from my students I have learned the most.” On our daf today a great rabbi is corrected by, and learns from, his students.

If in the bill of sale the seller delineated one boundary line on one side of the field long, and the other boundary line on the opposite side of the field he delineated short, Rav said: The buyer acquires only a width of land corresponding to the short border, as it is assumed that the short boundary line delineates the actual size of the field that was sold to him, while the long boundary line was merely intended to point to the field under discussion. That is to say, the seller delineated the boundaries in a broad manner, but did not intend to include everything found within those boundaries in the sale. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: But let him also acquire the triangular plot [rosh tor] bounded by the diagonal line connecting the end of the short border and the end of the long border. Rav was silent and did not respond.

We learn from here a great lesson – that the greatest people are those who can learn from everyone, even their students. And that truly great leaders can accept being told they are wrong and learning and adjusting.

We start a new chapter on today’s daf. The main lesson from the daf is that, when you sell a home, you do not sell any other room attached or along side the house (or if you sell a field you do not sell the abutting fields) unless very specifically mentioned in the sale:

MISHNA: One who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, an extension built above or alongside the main building, and this is so even if the gallery is attached to the house and opens into it. Nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from inside the house. He has also not sold the roof when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, as such a roof is considered a separate entity and is therefore not included in the sale of the house. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the parapet has the form of a doorway, that is, if it consists of two upright posts with a beam crossing over them, then even if the parapet is not ten handbreadths high, the roof is not sold together with the house, unless it is specifically included in the sale.

Why is this my gem? Because I am a reform Jew! And this passage is quickly “reformed” to say that this is how is was, but nowadays when you sell a home, of course you are assumed to be including the porch, the basement, the shed – unless otherwise clarified. So, we see that the Talmud is a living document and that studying and then making it applicable to our lives today is what keeps our Judaism relevant.

Two gems on our daf today. The first is from the Torah. When King Balak wants to fight the Hebrews, he calls upon the prophet Balaam to curse them. He keeps trying but cannot. Finally, in his last attempts he opens his mouth and says his own blessing (not one God puts in his mouth). It’s quoted on our daf:

Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the verse states: “And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel dwelling tribe by tribe; and the spirit of God came upon him” (Numbers 24:2). The Gemara explains: What was it that Balaam saw that so inspired him? He saw that the entrances of their tents were not aligned with each other, ensuring that each family enjoyed a measure of privacy. And he said: If this is the case, these people are worthy of having the Divine Presence rest on them.

The lesson: respecting privacy is worthy of God’s blessings.

The second is another valuable lesson, that we should always model the behavior we want to see in others.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yannai had a tree that was leaning into the public domain. There was a certain man who also had a tree that was leaning into the public domain, and the general public was preventing him from leaving it there, insisting he cut it down, as required by the mishna (27b). He came before Rabbi Yannai, who said to him: Go now, and come tomorrow. At night, Rabbi Yannai sent and had someone cut down that tree that belonged to him. The next day, that man came before Rabbi Yannai, who said to him: Go, cut down your tree. The man said to him: But the Master also has a tree that leans into the public domain. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and see: If mine is cut down, then cut yours down. If mine is not cut down, you do not have to cut yours down, either. The Gemara asks: At the outset what did Rabbi Yannai hold, and ultimately, what did he hold? The Gemara replies: At the outset, he held that the general public is amenable to having the tree there, as they sit in its shade. Once he saw that they were preventing someone else who owned a tree from keeping his, he understood that it was only out of respect that they did not object to his tree being there. He therefore sent someone to cut it down. The Gemara asks: But why did he tell the man to return the next day? Let him say to him: Go cut down your tree, and then I will cut mine down. The Gemara answers: Because of the statement of Reish Lakish, who said: The verse states: “Gather yourselves together and gather [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and this can be explained homiletically to mean: Adorn [keshot] yourself and afterward adorn others, i.e., act properly before requiring others to do so.

Here, the rabbi makes a sacrifice before he asks another to. We should model the behavior we want to see in the world.

Today’s gem is l’dor vador, the gift of passing traditions from generation to generation.

It was stated that there is a dispute with regard to this issue, as Rabbi Oshaya says: The owner of the courtyard can prevent the owner of the roof from sealing the pipe, while Rabbi Ḥama, Rabbi Oshaya’s father, says: He cannot prevent it. Rabbi Oshaya went and asked Rabbi Ḥama’s father, Rabbi Bisa. Rabbi Bisa said to them: He can prevent it. Rami bar Ḥama read the verse about him: “And if a man prevail against him that is alone, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12), saying that this applies to Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Bisa, three generations of Torah scholars in one family who knew one another and conversed with each other with regard to matters of halakha

How beautiful to be able to discuss matters of Torah law a grandparent to a grandchild before my grandfather died one of the joys that I had was getting to discuss Torah passages with him. He is an orthodox rabbi so it was fun to debate and to support our ideas with different verses of Torah and I know it gave him nothing but joy.

Today’s gem is an aside that tells of what happened when Rabbi Bena’a goes to mark burial caves… and meets ancestors and gets a shave.

Having mentioned Rabbi Bena’a, the Gemara relates an incident in which he was involved. Rabbi Bena’a was marking burial caves for the purpose of helping to prevent the contracting of ritual impurity. When he arrived at the cave of Abraham, i.e., the Cave of Machpelah, he encountered Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, who was standing before the entrance. Rabbi Bena’a said to him: What is Abraham doing at this moment? Eliezer said to him: He is lying in the arms of Sarah, and she is examining his head. 

Okay, pause. Let’s just take a minute to see how prescious their relationship is. Abraham laying in Sara’s lap as she brushes his hair.

Rabbi Bena’a said to him: Go tell him that Bena’a is standing at the entrance, so that he should assume an appropriate position to receive a visitor. Eliezer said to him: Let him, i.e., Rabbi Bena’a, enter, since it is known that there is no evil inclination in this higher world, so it is not inappropriate for Rabbi Bena’a to see Abraham and Sarah in this position. He entered, examined the cave in order to measure it, and exited.

Okay! So he sees Abraham and Sara!

When he arrived at the cave of Adam the first man, who is buried in the same area, a Divine Voice emerged and said: You gazed upon the likeness of My image, i.e., Abraham, who is similar to the image of Adam the first man. Do not gaze upon My image itself, i.e., Adam the first man, about whom the verse states that he was formed in the image of God (see Genesis 1:27). Rabbi Bena’a said: But I need to mark the cave. The voice said to him: As the measurements of the dimensions of the outer cave where Abraham is buried, so are the measurements of the dimensions of the inner cave, where Adam is buried. The Gemara notes: And according to the one who says that the Cave of Machpelah consists of two chambers, this one above that one, not two adjacent chambers, the voice said: As the measurements of the dimensions of the upper cave where Abraham is buried, so are the measurements of the dimensions of the lower cave. Therefore, there is no need to measure it. 

So, he comes to the cave of Adam and is warned not to enter. He is told it’s the same size as Abraham’s and that he can’t look at Adam because he was created in the image of God and Rabbi Bena’a won’t be able to survive it. But can he resist?

Rabbi Bena’a says: I gazed at his, Adam’s, two heels, and they shone so brightly that they are similar to two suns. 

Now we get to the beauty of these ancestors.

Along these lines, the Gemara states that all people compared to Sarah are like a monkey compared to a human, as Sarah was exceedingly beautiful; Sarah compared to Eve is like a monkey compared to a human; Eve compared to Adam is like a monkey compared to a human; and Adam compared to the Divine Presence is like a monkey compared to a human. 

But why stop with ancestors?

It was also stated that the beauty of Rav Kahana is a semblance of the beauty of Rav. The beauty of Rav is a semblance of the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu. The beauty of Rabbi Abbahu is a semblance of the beauty of Jacob our forefather. The beauty of Jacob our forefather is a semblance of the beauty of Adam the first man.

It’s so interesting. It’s not their physical Beaty that makes them glow. It’s their closeness to God. When we embody Gods virtues – love, grace, compassion – we glow with beauty.

Loving today’s daf as it teaches us two valuable lessons about women and modesty.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bena’a: Partners may prevent each other from using their courtyard for any purpose except for washing laundry. This is because it is not the way of Jewish women to be degraded over washing laundry by laundering their clothing in a public area. Therefore, they must be allowed to launder in the courtyard.

Our first lesson – don’t make a woman air her dirty laundry in public! (And I mean that both literally and as a figure of speech.) There are things woman may want to keep private and that’s up to them.

The Gemara then quotes a verse with says “He that walks righteously . . . shuts his eyes from looking upon evil” (Isaiah 33:15). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: This is referring to one who does not gaze at women while they are standing over the laundry, as it was common for them to stand in the water and raise the hems of their garments while laundering their clothing. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where there is another way by which the one walking could reach his destination, then one who walks past the women, consequently placing himself in a situation where he will be tempted to gaze at them, is wicked. Alternatively, if it is referring to a case where there is no other way by which he can reach his destination, then he is a victim of circumstance, so why is he required to shut his eyes? The Gemara explains: Actually, it is referring to a case where there is no other way by which he can reach his destination, and even so, he is required to compel himself to avoid gazing at the women.

Yes! Just because you can see down her shirt does not give you the right to do so. It’s not what she’s wearing – it’s where your looking – that matters.

Today’s gem is from the wise Rabbi Akiva:

Rabbi Akiva would say we can only accept testimony is accepted only with regard to a complete matter, and not with regard to half of a matter.

A half-truth is still not the truth. Lies by omission are still lies. Tell it like it is Rabbi Akiva.

Today’s gem: Sea Squill

Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The boundary between fields and the sea squill serve as a barrier between fields.

In Israel, it’s not the changing of the colors of the leaves that symbolize autumn (like in the Northeast US); it’s the arrival of the sea squill that signifies that summer is over. Just as on our daf, these 35 inch stalks with white star-like flowers, lime-green anthers, and a purple stem mark boundaries between fields.

The sea squill grows all over the Mediterranean basin. It’s biological name Urginea Maritima reflects this. “Urginea” refers to an Arabian tribe in Algeria, known as Ben Urgin. “Maritima” means ‘growing by the sea’. Israel is so narrow that actually anywhere in Israel is considered near the coast.

How do we acquire land that seemingly belongs to no one? Today’s daf gives many situations: a woman who cuts branches from a palm for 13 year (who does not get ownership) and a man who plows below the same palm once (and does get ownership). A man who hits the ground with a hoe, and one who paints a picture on the wall who both gain ownership. Yet, there are contradictions as there is an important concept, and today’s gem, called Dina d’malkhuta dina, a principle that states that the civil law of a country is binding on Jewish people who live there. In some cases, it can even be preferred over Jewish law. The law of the land may be that you have to use a document to acquire the land . . . and pay taxes on it. So, graffiti on a wall may not be enough for the local authorities to recognize your right to that unclaimed abode . ..

The body is the house of the soul . . . that’s what I thought about reading this little section on our daf today:

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: If there were two houses in a courtyard, this one situated within the courtyard relative to that one, and one took possession of the outer house in order to acquire it, he has acquired it. If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the inner house, he has acquired the outer house, but has not acquired the inner house. If he took possession of the outer house in order to acquire the inner house alone, he has not acquired even the outer house. If he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire it, he has acquired it. If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the outer house, he has acquired both of them. Since the residents of the inner house possess the right to pass through the outer house in order to enter and exit the courtyard, the outer house is viewed as an extension of the inner house. If he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire only the outer house, he has not acquired even the inner house, since he did not take possession of the property that he intended to acquire.

The inner and outer houses. I keep thinking of the difference between feeling ownership of your body verses feeling ownership of your soul; giving your body to someone verses giving your soul to someone. And the difference between an either or and a both – giving both body and soul. . . and how, your partner has to be intentional – you both do – in order for that to happen.